Are club rides under threat from Highway Code changes?

[sore thumb]

Seen an article in cycling weekly regarding cyclists having to stop to allow drivers to pass?.

Could this rule in the Highway Code give drivers an excuse to criticise cyclists behaviour on social media and as such drivers will have the belief that cyclists must stop for them?



What are your thoughts and are cycling organisations aware of this Highway Code rule?




Article link below

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/are- ... de-changes

[DaveReading]

Frankly ridiculous.

[Nigel]

I think that paper is known as "the comic".

Yes, cycling organisations are aware of the highway code changes - all the ones which matter replied to the consultation. And whilst they'd have liked a few more changes, are pretty happy with what's appeared.

[Jdsk]

Frankly ridiculous.

More, please... the new wording or the suggestion that it will cause a problem for club rides?

Thanks

Jonathan

[DaveReading]

Frankly ridiculous.

More, please... the new wording or the suggestion that it will cause a problem for club rides?

Thanks

Jonathan

Well all of it, but in particular the implication that a group singling out will make it easier to overtake - when, in practice, it might (if the road isn't wide enough for one car to overtake or pass another) but most of the time it won't and may even make it harder.

[Jdsk]

Thanks

Jonathan

[Cowsham]

I agree with the new rule but it wouldn't have had to happen if we cyclists had a titter of wit and be courteous to car drivers as they are mostly courteous to us ( in my experience ).

On Wednesday I stopped on a narrow road to let a car passed at the earliest opportunity for two reasons -- 1 it was safer for me and 2 it was better for the reputation of cyclists in general in our area.

[drossall]

There has always been a requirement for slower-moving vehicles to pull over or otherwise allow traffic behind to pass. That's usually interpreted as "every now and then", not "the instant you get the chance", or clearly the slower vehicle would never make progress. But it applies to tractors, caravans and the like, for example, and to cyclists as well (why not?) So, if you've had a tailback behind for some minutes, you ought to be thinking about doing something about it.

I've no special knowledge about whether the new Code will change that. And of course I realise that singling out may be less safe for all the
usual reasons.

[PH]

I agree with the new rule but it wouldn't have had to happen if we cyclists had a titter of wit and be courteous to car drivers as they are mostly courteous to us ( in my experience ).
On Wednesday I stopped on a narrow road to let a car passed at the earliest opportunity for two reasons -- 1 it was safer for me and 2 it was better for the reputation of cyclists in general in our area.

This reflects my attitude and actions as well, however I do so through choice rather than feeling obliged by the waiting driver or a set of rules. The driver may not understand those choices - The gateway I could pull into is muddy, it's too hard to re-start on that hill, I'll shortly be turning off or there's a junction coming up, or anything else - I don't want an impatient driver thinking I ought to, there's already too many of them think we shouldn't be on the road at all.
IMO this HC change is too vague to be useful and open to the interpretation the linked article suggests.

[Spen]

What strikes me as odd is that CW has apparently just learnt of this, the article appears to have been posted three days ago, while the amended wording has been on a government website since 21st December

[Jdsk]

What strikes me as odd is that CW has apparently just learnt of this, the article appears to have been posted three days ago, while the amended wording has been on a government website since 21st December

And the whole consultation was run in the open before that. And here's what Cycling Weekly wrote on 27 October 2020:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/late ... ads-473924

But this article says:

The wording on the rules on group riding has been a source of controversy since the proposal was first announced in July 2020. A government response last year appeared to indicate the plans had been dropped.

But now Cycling Weekly has learned...

I'd add incompetent to odd.

Jonathan

PS: Everyone's entitled to continue campaigning, drum up support, and express their concerns and regrets. But not to be surprised.

[mjr]

PS: Everyone's entitled to continue campaigning, drum up support, and express their concerns and regrets. But not to be surprised.

The perilous state of print media means quite possibly there's been a whole turnover of reporters since the consultation!

[Jdsk]

PS: Everyone's entitled to continue campaigning, drum up support, and express their concerns and regrets. But not to be surprised.

The perilous state of print media means quite possibly there's been a whole turnover of reporters since the consultation!

I wondered who the author was...

"When a friend told me Cycling Weekly was looking for a news editor, I didn't give myself much chance of landing the role, but I did and joined the publication in 2016."
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/are- ... de-changes

Jonathan

[rmurphy195]

When I read the Highway Code changes earlier, I got the impression that the opposite is the case - drivers having to wait for a suitable gap between cyclists?

[Cowsham]

I agree with the new rule but it wouldn't have had to happen if we cyclists had a titter of wit and be courteous to car drivers as they are mostly courteous to us ( in my experience ).
On Wednesday I stopped on a narrow road to let a car passed at the earliest opportunity for two reasons -- 1 it was safer for me and 2 it was better for the reputation of cyclists in general in our area.

This reflects my attitude and actions as well, however I do so through choice rather than feeling obliged by the waiting driver or a set of rules. The driver may not understand those choices - The gateway I could pull into is muddy, it's too hard to re-start on that hill, I'll shortly be turning off or there's a junction coming up, or anything else - I don't want an impatient driver thinking I ought to, there's already too many of them think we shouldn't be on the road at all.
IMO this HC change is too vague to be useful and open to the interpretation the linked article suggests.

Whilst I agree with all you say, there does seem to be ( seems to me at least ) a portion of the cycling fraternity that think they have right of way everywhere they care to grace with their presence.

I have encountered this while driving. Once on a straight bit of country road ( we class as a B road but not as narrow as the "B" roads in England -- they are like some farmers lane ours are wide enough for two cars to pass, head on, easily without slowing )

3 cyclists in front of me 3 abreast but the one nearest the white line was so fat his body was on the other side of the white line making it impossible to pass and he was wobbling about sometimes wheels on the other side of the white line.

No consideration for any other road user just chatting away as they dawdled along like last of the summer wine.

I waited patiently behind them for about 2 miles before they decided it was time to turn off the road at the next junction.

Who could be surprised about car drivers attitudes to cyclists when this is the behavior of some.

Thankfully there's not too many in our part of the world.